Global Rich List (opens in new tab)

Part of the nuance of the issue is the difference between "give a man a fish" versus "teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime". There is a moral dilemma between spending money now to feed 100 people versus teaching one person to fish for a lifetime. That is a tough dilemma to solve. But different charities approach this in different ways.

The philosophy behind Kiva is to help people build sustainable businesses in poorer countries which have semi-functioning states (say poorer Latin American countries prone to dictatorships but still have some notion of property rights and trials for murders). This has the potential to bring entire communities to a more well-off state. Is it a good use of money? Undoubtedly. Are you better off giving that money to better charities that target people with more acute needs? Probably.

Here's another example: you might have seen criticism of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for spending lots of money on eradicating polio. The argument is that instead of spending upwards of $1000 a head on eradicating Polio (cost divided by number of annual polio deaths), they could spend that at $10 a head on reducing malaria deaths. The counter argument is that _eradication_ is a huge win because once you've eradicated polio you can stop all future payments on Polio containment (which is in the billions of dollars annually) because you've permanently solved the problem, for present and future poor people. It turns out that the net present value of all those future payments equaling zero (just as today we spend zero dollars on small pox containment and treatment and vaccination now that we've eradicated it) makes it worth it to actually spend a disproportionate amount of money on polio vaccines on the ground (as the Gates foundation is doing), even if the marginal dollar saves less lives today than if we put it into malaria vaccines.

If you're interested in this line of work, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is probably one of the best charities out there, since they actually grapple with these questions. But they're not actually capital starved (they're spending money as fast as they can). To answer that meta-question, you should look at GiveWell, which is probably the best meta-charity (they actually evaluate charities, and also factor in things like scalability, so they rank charities but also state how much money they think that charity needs before your marginal dollar should be allocated to the next one on the list since the first one will have enough money to accomplish their goals). They also look at how well run the charities are at actually accomplishing what they want to accomplish, etc.

In short, if you want to do the most good in a utilitarian sense, you can't do any better than going to GiveWell and donating to charities as per their recommendation. Honestly, if you needed to calculate a joint probability function over total human utility, and wanted to target your dollars at maximizing that function, Holden Karnofsky (the guy at the head of GiveWell) is exactly the person you should be asking.

That's something I've pressed for here a lot at Kiva, showing how positive your impact is. Last year, we started rating our partners on "catalytic"-ness, which is somewhat of a proxy for impact, and now 33% of our loans are rated highly catalytic. There's some studies which have shown impact both of microfinance in general and some that include our specific partners, but in general not nearly enough studies. And I'm sure with enough data, we'd find that microloans can have one of the greatest impacts, but that there are certainly situations where charitable giving can be even more impactful under the right circumstances. The problem is studies are hard to do right and expensive, and thus it's hard to get data on what is most impactful. From an engineering perspective, I'd love to solve this problem, but it seems to be one of those problems that requires more of an academic solution.

This is known as the efficient charity problem. GiveWell is the one of the few groups trying to solve it: http://www.givewell.org/

The Robin Hood Foundation, a charity which aims to "find, fund and partner with programs that have proven they are an effective remedy to poverty" [1] in New York City, has built robust metrics, at least on par with the Bill & Melinda Gates and Bloomberg Foundations. They work rigorously to identify where their dollars "have the greatest positive impact". More on Robin Hood's metrics: https://www.robinhood.org/metrics.

Disclaimer: I donate to the Robin Hood Foundation

[1] https://www.robinhood.org/about

In my analysis of this "dilemma" I refer to this example: the man who stopped the desert http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/the-man-who-...

The desert progress can be assimilate to poverty, something we beleive to be unstoppable. But the man above stopped the desert progress by planting little trees. In the long run it proved much more efficient than giving some water to the starving plants at the desert border. Kiva is like planting little trees.

On the other hand I also understand that some people want to contribute where urgent help is needed.

I guess we can divide giving into three broad categories

1. Organizations that concentrate on infrastructure/research - building roads, schools etc

2. Immediate help - food, medical care etc (like Watsi)

3. Helping people help themselves - like what Kiva is doing

It would be nice to have some kind of model/formula that can help with lending, especially for small time donors/lenders.

Another Kiva fan here :)

Are there any think tanks that look into world issues as a whole and give recommendations (other than UN agencies)?

I don't think all Americans are in work ...

edit: Brief searching gives around 135 million Americans in work (this number maybe excluding farm work).

(For better statistics see gapminder.org, it's quite fascinating)

I think that's the median gross income of "workers" - people of working age, in the labour market.

You need to subtract your taxes from that, and factor in all of the people who don't count as "workers".

Of course it's more than that, EU's average GDP per capita is 70% of that of the USA, population is over 150% of U.S., and income is more evenly distributed down here so losers are better off than in USA. And there is also Japan where the vast majority of 120+mm population get way more.

Yep, same here. I live in Sydney AU and the app also put me in the top 1% richest people in the world by income.

When I did it by wealth, the result was: "Your personal wealth is equal to the combined wealth of 0 people in Myanmar." and "1% of your wealth could feed a family of four in Ethiopia for 0 months."

There's no doubt that we live way more comfortably than most people in Myanmar do but it's clear that being born with wealth to start with helps no matter where you live.

Honest question, if you earn so much (1% you claim) where does all your income go? You're supporting others? You're paying off student loans? Your rent is really really high?

Anyway. If you've no accumulated wealth just enter your income and then marvel at the disparity between you and the 99%.

You're not a 1%er if you have no assets.

"For currency conversion we use Purchasing Power Parity Dollars (PPP$) in order to take into account the difference in cost of living between countries; PPP$ are also less susceptible to short term fluctuations."

this isn't really that true (and i say this as a brit living in chile, so have some experience). sure, some things are cheap. but if you're talking about the kind of wealth many people here have, you exhaust those pretty quickly. it's basically local produce and labour that's cheap. anything "interesting" - media, electronics, car, brand name clothes, travel, etc - is the same (or more expensive, since it's imported).

i'm not saying you need those things to survive. you can certainly survive in chile much cheaper than in the usa. but for a good quality of life (in the consumption sense - like, global top 1% or so, which i imagine many people here are) i would guess it's actually cheaper in the usa (although health care is cheaper here, but that's kind of a weird us outlier thing).

Likely a 32bit int rounding issue? 2147483648

Adjust your income by subtracting the annual cost of servicing your debt and wealth by subtracting the present value of the debt.

Implying you're the target audience.. ;)

I also noticed that. I'm hoping to get up to zero net worth in the next couple of years, though...